The Sopranos: Last Season

I think he was hinting that Tony was gonna be whacked, so we'd be watching intently...then actually feel what it feels to be killed instantly, lights out.

Chase and Gandofini made no secret of the fact that they both felt there were bloodthirsty fans, my words, who wanted more killing in some shows. I know part of the complaints this season have been about the "lack of violence", and I feel Chase did what he did in answer to that....sort of, "so you want someone whacked, here...see how it feels".

I mean, that's not the only reason he "whacked" the viewer, but i bet some of that sentiment was in there. It was a great reason for the show ending...we couldnt' watch anymore because we'd been killed.

It's the ultimate "audience as part of the film" idea...very theatrical in it's origin.

 

It may have been more interesting if we had heard the bell of the door ring, Tony look up and then a gunshot, then black, but that wouldn't have been consistent with Bobby's comment that "maybe you don't hear it".

I can live with the Bobby scene reference with the end of the bell of the door ringing and Tony looking up and then black screen, silence. It makes sense to me.

 

This still makes *NO SENSE* to me because we were not looking OUT FROM TONY'S eyes, we were looking at Tony the instant before the screen went black.

It's not like we had a 1st person gamer point of view ,or Terminator-type view. We were looking AT HIM so we'd have seen the shot that never happened. Or hear it. Or hear the restaurant.

The show was not from Tony's perspective. he was the protagonist of most of the episodes but we broke away from him sometimes. There's no reason why we couldn't have seen him get whacked if that what David Chase wanted to show us.

I still think the most consistent theory is that when the screen went black that it symbolized that *we* , the audience could no longer view what was going on in the show. It's the door coming down on a peepshow booth.

Just because Tony was a monster who deserved to get whacked, and that we wanted to see him get his, doesn't mean that happens in that universe. He could live to be older than junior. He could die in a car accident. He could have a heart attack.

Yes, semiotics abound. yes, the cinematography, set-design, color choices and editing all add up to a heart pounding experience for us but that's all we got. I guess people demand "action" in a mob story, and an ending to every story (even The Never-ending Story had an ending.)

 

I agree completely. This simple and obvious fact makes all of the Tony dies theories hard to swallow as far as I can tell.

 

Does a bullet travel faster than the speed of sound? Or could there have been a silencer? Did he come out of the can with more than his d**k in his hand? If T was shot how the other two who ate the rings (a sure sign of death, or clogged arteries, in fast food chains the world over).

 

Tom, and now coop, nothing anyone writes will make sense to you because it isn't what you think.

These are opinions. My opinion makes complete sense to me and that's all. Everyone here has a right to his or her opinion. I only jumped back in this because the topic came up again and I thought I'd post my thoughts.

As a few people pointed out several times earlier in the thread, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion and because your opinion may be different doesn't diminish anyone else's opinion. There's a sense of eliteness in your posts that, to me at least, comes across as antagonistic. No one here wants to argue with you. You don't have to agree with anyone else's opinion, but please don't tell someone their opinion is wrong when, as of now, there is no "right" opinion.

 

i still think the ending was pure genius.

people will talk about it 10 years form or longer.

renny

 

I agree. What I love about all these "theories" is that they are ALL correct, to an extent. There are "clues" all over the place that support just about any theory...

Which just makes me think the "life goes on" explanation is still the strongest one. Tony has always worried about getting killed, afterall.

 

I absolutely agree that everyone's opinion is valid. That's what makes it so interesting to discuss. I enjoy reading other's opinions and considering things I hadn't thought of myself. While there was a lot interesting analysis in the Harris blog entry, I felt that there was a fundamental flaw in his theory in that it only works if the final shot is from Tony's perspective, which it wasn't. As Dennis Miller used to say, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong...

 

Watch the scene again - get out a piece of paper and write down a description of EVERY camera angle for the last three minutes of the show.

By my count, the camera angle changed 110 times (starting with the first image of Tony after he left the sanitarium).

Then add up how many of the 110 views *are* from Tony's perspective.

There is a fairly sizeable number - and the angle keeps shifting between a view of Tony and then follows it with what Tony is seeing.

With this in mind - its not hard to argue that the image of Tony looking up was the penultimate image and that Tony's world went black at the exact moment we were provided with Tony's view.

Again - that does NOT nullify the idea that "we" - the audience - got wacked.

But I think the idea that Tony lived simply because we saw him look up is a much tougher thesis to defend.


Hey - if this was film school - and we were being asked to hand in a paper - the only thing that would matter is if we could DEFEND our viewpoint. Some papers would argue Tony died - and some would argue he didn't - and some might even argue that Chase brilliantly walked the line... but the whole orange thing in the Godfather - kind of seals it for me - and its not something I was aware of about the Godfather until this week and I've seen that movie probably 50 times....

 

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/james_gandolfini_shot_by_closure

 

1.) view of tony walking into the restaurant
2.) view FROM TONY into restaurant
3.) view of tony's face
4.) view of Tony sitting down (davis' "last supper" angle)
5.) view of tony looking at jukebox
6.) closeup of tony
7.) view FROM TONY of songlist
8.) view of waitress
9.) view of cooks
10.) view FROM TONY of songlist
11.) view of Tony looking at someone coming in
12.) view FROM TONY of someone entering
13.) view of tony looking at jukebox
14.) view FROM TONY of songlist
15.) view of Tony looking at jukebox
16.) view FROM TONY of songlist
17.) view of tony as someone walks in
18.) view FROM TONY of truckers entrance
19.) view of tony looking at jukebox and putting in money
20.) view of tony as someone walks in
21.) view FROM TONY of carmella's entrance
22.) view of Tony in booth
23.) view FROM TONY of carmella walking towards him
24.) view of tony's face as he grabs menu
25.) view as camera pulls back while tony is grabbing menu
26.) view of another booth (maybe Tony's view?)
27.) view of bear scouts and grandpa guy (not Tony's view)
28.) view FROM TONY of carmella
29.) view of tony saying hi to carmella
30.) view FROM TONY of carmella saying "hi" to tony
31.) view of carmella and tony
32.) view FROM TONY of carmella
33.) view of tony looking at menu
34.) view FROM TONY as carmella asks questions
35.) view of tony's reply (from behind carmella)
36.) view of tony and carmellas
37.) view of carmella (not tony's POV - wrong angle)
38.) view of tony
39.) view of carmella
40.) view of tony looking at carmella
41.) view of carmella
42.) view of tony
43.) view FROM TONY of trucker
44.) view of tony and carmella
45.) view FROM TONY of carmella
46.) view of tony
47.) view of carmella
48.) view of tony
49.) view of carmella
50.) view of tony
51.) view of carmella
52.) view of MO man (not tony's POV)
53.) view of tony looking up
54.) view FROM TONY of AJ and MO man
55.) view of tony
56.) view FROM TONY of AJ
57.) view of all three in booth (AJ sitting down)
58.) view FROM TONY of AJ
59.) view of tony saying 'da best in da state'
60.) side view of booth
61.) view FROM TONY of MO man
62.) view from behind Tony of AJ (close to Tony's POV but not quite)
63.) outside shot of meadows car
64.) view inside meadows car
65.) view of tony and carmella
66.) view of meadow
67.) view of meadow's stick shift
68.) view of meadow's hand on her wheel
69.) view of meadow's face
70.) view of meadows tire
71.) view of meadow cursing
72.) view of meadow's car from across the street
73.) view of AJ and carmella (not tonys POV)
74.) side view of booth in restaurant
75.) view of young couple in booth laughing (tony's POV?)
76.) view of MO man
77.) view of Tony's face ? (cant read my handwriting - LOL)
78.) view of carmella
79.) view of AJ (from behind AJ)
80.) view of carmella and AJ
81.) side view of booth
82.) view FROM TONY of AJ
83.) view of Tony
84.) view of AJ
85.) view of Tony
86.) view of AJ
87.) view of Tony
88.) view FROM TONY of carmella
89.) view of Tony
90.) view of AJ
91.) view of meadow's rear bumper
92.) view of meadow inside her car
93.) view of meadows car from across the street
94.) view of MO man getting up
95.) view of tony
96.) view of AJ
97.) view of tony
98.) view of MO man walking into the bathroom
99.) view of black youths entering
100.) view of tony
101.) view of meadow from across the street
102.) view of tony getting rings from waitress
103.) view of carm eating ring
104.) view of AJ eating ring
105.) view of tony eating ring
106.) view of meadow crossing the stret
107.) view of meadow as she runs across the street
108.) side view of family in booth
109.) view of tony looking up
110.) black


By my count, there are at least 21 camera angles in the sequence that appear to be from TONY'S POINT OF VIEW

I was pretty conservative about what I counted as tony's view.

A more liberal interpretation might add another 10 or 15 to the count
(just a guess)

Having gone through this exercise I couldnt help but keep thinking about how Carmella mentioned how some of AJ's friends are now in film school.

Coincidence ??? You be the judge.

It's definetly NOT an homage to the long tracking shot of the wise guys entering the copa from GOOD FELLAS... (a la Swingers)

I don't know if the number of changes is considering fast - but it sure seemed that way... and it definetly seemed to add some tension to the scene.

I don't think anyone else in the restaurant (besides tony's family and the MO man) was highlighted more than once. The waitress might have ended up in a few shots - but thats about it...

 

We already have a thread running on this, from a few days ago.

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=118318

 

I got thinking last night after I posted the sequence of camera angles about the scene in The Graduate where Ben (Dustin Hoffman) is walking to the pool dressed in scuba gear.

It's clearly from Ben's POV, but just to make sure we KNOW it... the director included his flippers at the bottom of the screen... the flippers don't even look realistic (meaning the camera angle if it was truly Ben's POV - shouldn't have a strange set of flippers going up and down)... that view of the flippers has always bugged me... partly, because I'm trying to imagine what it looked like as they filmed it - with some poor soul huddled below the camera desparately trying to flap the things so they end up in the shot... but also because it seems a little too overt for my taste... and it doesn't jive with some of the other more brilliant parts of that film.

The whole "it's not Tony's POV" argument seems to rest on the idea that Chase should have had Tony hold up his arm and look at his watch to make sure we all understand what we are looking at.

I'm sorry - but if he did - it would look about as graceful as those crazy flippers in The Graduate. And then we'd be debating if the arm hair looked like Gandolfini - LOL

 

Look, SOME OF THE SHOTS in the last scene were from Tony's POV, but not the last one we saw. The last image on screen is US looking AT Tony. If the argument is that the camera view switched to Tony at the exact same moment he was shot then I think it's not persuasive enough for me.

 

The last image is 10 seconds of black and its been reported that Chase wanted 30 seconds of black but HBO made him shorten it.

Whether that's "our" black view, or Tony's "black view" is debatable.

My feeling is that its BOTH our view AND his view. Namely we lost our connection into Tony's world because we lost Tony. But that's a subjective call on my part.


What I don't have the time to do - is to analyze how many OTHER scenes in the series appeared to use Tony's POV - at all - if ever...

Namely, is "20% Tony's POV" considered *high* - relative to every scene in every episode ???? Or is it normal? (I don't know - but I suspect 20% is very very high)

If you analyzed every sequence in every episode - and found that we got Tony's view less than 1% of the time, would that be more persuasive ?

It doesn't have to be... there is no right answer.


It's clear we didn't see Tony die. Chase could easily make a movie that starts out with Meadow sitting down and eating her onion ring.

But he could also make a movie that starts with Tony talking to Christopher in hell - a la - Kevin Finnerty... and Meadow on earth sobbing uncontrollably as she holds her dead father in her arms.

Personally - I think Chase would go for the Tony in hell idea because it would be more interesting... they could find some lady to play a youthful version of Tony's mother... and we could watch what happens after the family is split AND re-united (much like what happened when Kevin Finnerty was stuck in his dimension and his family was coping with his absence).

Do I think such a movie will be made? No.

Would I go see such a movie ? Yes.

 

Does anyone recall where the Tony "last supper" image that someone linked to on the bracco web-page came from ?

I have a vague memory of that being a fold-out in Rolling Stone - but I can't say for sure. Maybe one of the DVD sets?

It's definetly old - because it shows Tony's mother. But I think its legit.

And Chase is in the photo (on the extreme left).


Is it a photo or a painting ? Seems to me like a photo was made and then someone painted it based on the photo...

 

I think if David Chase had wanted to end the series with Tony's death, he would have ended it with Tony getting killed on camera. I don't know what the point would be of being so indirect about it if that's all he wanted the ending to be.

To me the scene is about subverting the expectation of a good chunk of the audience that the series would end in a bloodbath, as well as ending the series on a note of anxiety and threat despite Tony's narrow escape. Analyzing the camera angles to "prove" that Tony gets killed seems pointless to me -- the scene is very deliberately shot to make it look as if something terrible is about to happen, but nothing actually does. It's directorial misdirection.

I think, though, that an ending you need to rationalize intellectually for weeks before you can accept it is not a good ending. I can come up with explanations for what Chase intended but the ending still didn't really *feel* right to me. If that's how he wanted the show to end he could have arbitrarily cut it off at any point during the entire run -- when was Tony not looking over his shoulder? It made it seem more obvious that the only reason he was extending the series was because HBO and the audience wanted more episodes, and not because he wanted to finish telling Tony's story.

 

I did NOT analyze the camera angles to "prove" that Tony got killed.

I believe I have said time and time again in this thread that the scene is brilliantly ambiguous.

I provided the list of camera angles to prove that Chase was indeed using Tony's POV often during that sequence. Mostly because I have seen people say that Chase did not use Tony's POV (which is NOT true).

I did that analysis a few weeks back and I didn't bother to type in the results until I saw comments about how we didn't get the "DOOM" type view.


Outside of crawling inside Chase's head - which is impossible to do - its impossible to decide what did or didn't happen.

It's like the smile on the Mona Lisa. We will never know why she has that smirk. But that still doesn't mean we can't make other comments about elements that are most definetly included IN the painting.

I've really tried hard to not attack anyone's interpretation while asking questions about what happened in the last episode and in episodes prior
(mainly because I don't even own the DVDs - I pretty much watched each episode once - maybe occasionally twice after a rerun).


For example, I happened to realize I have the "Members Only" episode still on my TIVO the other night. Davis mentioned he was wearing the same shirt and I checked the shirt and I commented that I think its pretty close to the shirt he is wearing in the diner.

My hope was someone else would watch both episodes and say "Yeah - you're right - its the same shirt" or "No - look closely - they are slightly different"...

Comments like "You're crazy for paying attention to wardrobe" are not verbotten (at least from my standpoint - perhaps according to forum rules - but its definetly not something that upsets me personally)... but those types of comments don't really say anything much either way... except perhaps to reveal that the poster doesn't think wardrobe is relevant... which is a valid OPINION... but that kind of opinion would probably not merit a good grade in film school.

And that's fine - we are not being graded here - LOL


But I'm clearly trying to figure out what I'm going to write when I drop out of my boring drab day job in telecommunications and enroll in the USC film school next year

 

I would argue that the similarity of the shirts proves that Tony likes to wear a certain kind of shirt. It's like saying "Carmela had long nails, just like she did in that episode where she went to Paris -- is she going away somewhere again?"

 

My guess is some of the vitriol in this thread stems from the old Paul is dead rumour.

Yes... the people who looked for clues were loony.

And many of the "clues" were far fetched and more importantly it never made sense to prove that a person died IN REAL LIFE - based on some clues that appeared to be sprinkled through a sequence of songs and cover sleeves.

But this is different - we're talking about a completely fictional world and discussing what happened inside that fictional world. There is no proof
of anything. Chase could write a new script where the whole darn thing was a dream...


That being said - I did once write a paper in high school and I talked about about the whole "Paul is Dead" phenomena - and I got a lot of compliments for including a photograph of the legit OPP patch (Ontario Provincial Police) and shot of Paul's sleeve that was mis-interpreted as OPD. I think the fact that the mystery of the patch wasn't so mysterious after all was what my teacher liked.


And - yes - its a rule here - all threads eventually have to mention Paul McCartney

 

OK... now you're forcing me to watch my laserdisc of The Graduate tonight with the analysis of the wardrobe by the film school professor - LOL

There are definetly some deliberate color choices that are used in that movie that the film professor keeps pointing out - and I never noticed before.

I think its something like "all of the adults always wear black and white."

After you see it - its almost ridiculous....

 

It's not that I don't think that wardrobe is significant to the characterization. But over the course of a TV series, the characters tend to wear the same sorts of things over and over. I'm not sure that on a scene-by-scene basis it's hugely significant that they're wearing the same shirt or the same kind of shirt they wore in an earlier episode.

 

This is more than "the same kind of shirt." They look practically the same. That was a deliberate choice made by Chase, unless some wardrobe person or Gandolfini snuck it in to be clever. We have to assume that everything is there for a reason, because that's what directors of Chase's ilk do.

 

I wonder if they plan to release another soundtrack album. It would be cool to have "Don't Stop Believing" on it!

BTW, I can't seem to find the Soprano's SACD anywhere anymore...is that getting hard to find?